Official Story Shill Crushed By Truther/Researcher in Radio Debate!

2. a person who publicizes or praises something or someone for reasons of self-interest, personal profit, or friendship or loyalty.

We know he's making money and that he's supporting the official story while making false claims about "thoroughly" considering the truth movement.
CIT made that pretty clear in the debate. He is therefore, by definition, shilling for the official story.

You know what? Fair enough. You make a good point. So, I secede my previous statement. According to the definition you gave you are absolutely
right.

'Crushed' is a bit extreme. I saw an author unprepared for the CIT silliness. He wants money and they want attention. The CIT theory is pure
nonsense based entirely on guesses about the final track of the airplane. No airpane flew away from the Pentagon. Witnesses saw it strike. CIT has no
theory about how thousands of gallons of hydrocarbons were smuggled into the Pentagon and by whom. They have no good explanation as to why any
plotters would bother with such a complicated plan. A last second pull up at the speed the plane was travelling wouldn't happen too smoothly at the
altitude of the aircraft.
These clowns have no credibility and drag out their same, tired, old stuff whenever they feel attention deprived. My theory is that CIT is testing the
gullibility quotient of the public to determine just how many people can be fooled by their Rube Goldberg theory.

He was crushed man. He was an author who made outrageous claims and who fell at the first hurdle.

Where are you getting the "thousands of gallons of hydrocarbons" from??

You actually believe that the alleged manouevre at cruise speed and full "penetration" into the first floor would have been a doddle??

You're asking me to speculate on the actual op itself. I could do that or I could stick to what we actually know.

"Thousands of gallons of hydrocarbon" would be the big fireball on impact and smoky fires. Your maneuver and penetration appeal to incredulity is
certainly a 'doddle.' The entire CIT theory hinges on estimates of the track of a passenger jet flying low and fast by untrained observers. The
estimates are used as the basis for a theory so contrived as to be laughable.
Why don't you speculate on the "actual op" and help out the hapless CIT?

Originally posted by GenRadek
I'm going to try a little test for the "Truthers" who believe that somehow, the CIT "eyewitnesses to the "NoC" idea proves the "OS"
wrong.

I didn't know CIT went down there and showed people who weren't at the scene pictures of planes flying overhead and ask them what route the planes
took?!

And .......

"WOOSH!!!"

that is the sound of it going over your head, just as I predicted.

So I take it you have never heard of "perspective" eh? Ok, well for starters, the reason why I posted the pictures with the questions to get an
idea of how one would describe the aircraft flying over whatever is in the picture. Apparently it was too complicated for you to understand but,
people tend to say "it flew over that sign over there", or "It flew over that house right there", when watching a plane or something flying a
distance away. However, as is the case, it is from their perspective, and sometimes, them saying "It flew over that house" or "Just over that
Citgo" does not mean that it actually flew directly over that particular spot on the Earth. Just like the picture of 747 landing, it looks like it
is flying over the billboard sign. But can we tell if it is? Is it closer? Farther? That is the error with CIT's use of the eyewitness accounts,
and their drawn "flight paths".

I know perfectly well what you're saying.
Some of the recorded witnesses were in positions where they couldn't physically see the aircraft on the official path from their stated positions or
described a path and trajectory that totally contradicts the OCT.

How about Sean Boger who was actally in the heliport looking straight at the Annex. How in the name of god could he possibly be confused by
perspective when the OCT aircraft wouldn't have crossed over his field of vision at any point? It would have been coming steadily from his left.

2. a person who publicizes or praises something or someone for reasons of self-interest, personal profit, or friendship or loyalty.

We know he's making money and that he's supporting the official story while making false claims about "thoroughly" considering the truth movement.
CIT made that pretty clear in the debate. He is therefore, by definition, shilling for the official story.

You know what? Fair enough. You make a good point. So, I secede my previous statement. According to the definition you gave you are absolutely
right.

And again, like I said before, I do think Craig Ranke won the debate.

edit on 9-11-2011 by gimme_some_truth because: (no reason given)

Thanks very much man!
It's rare these days to see anybody openly conceding a point. Appreciated.

The smoke was mainly from the generator. There were also two cars ablaze.

"You're making speculatory claims as fact." The generator and two cars couldn't have produced the fireball and the amount of smoke from burning
fuel.
What did happen to the plane, anyway?

The ASCE report claimed that only 15% of the alleged fuel load made up the fireball.
I've posted images showing the generator smoke (and from the cars) and the facade being extinguished.

What else should I show you?

Yes there was a fire inside but that doesn't necessarily mean that it was fueled by jet fuel. What we do know is that the smoke seen in the
first hours was mainly produced by the generator. End of story.

The smoke was mainly from the generator. There were also two cars ablaze.

"You're making speculatory claims as fact." The generator and two cars couldn't have produced the fireball and the amount of smoke from burning
fuel.
What did happen to the plane, anyway?

The ASCE report claimed that only 15% of the alleged fuel load made up the fireball.
I've posted images showing the generator smoke (and from the cars) and the facade being extinguished.

What else should I show you?

Yes there was a fire inside but that doesn't necessarily mean that it was fueled by jet fuel. What we do know is that the smoke seen in the
first hours was mainly produced by the generator. End of story.

Hardly end of story. 15% of the fuel made the fireball; that would be between 1500 and 2000 gallons. That would be between 300 and 400 5-gallon cans.
Where did that amount of fuel come from? Then, there was all the fuel burning inside the building. Where did that come from?

What about the disappearing plane? Where did it go?

You were invited to theorize and save Ranke but apparently you are unable to come up with any plausible theories.

I was talking about the ridiculous path plotted in the "Perspective 77" video. Or do you think it's correct?

There were NO actual witnesses to the "North of Citgo" path. Craig Ranke and his delusions come out of his butt, and he had to selectively
cherry-pick, and coach with leading questions in order to get the *results* he desired. The actual witnesses (including the pilot and crew of the
Minnesota Air National Guard C-130) saw the true path of the jet, American 77.

I think that the witnesses interviewed would beg to differ. Even when told of the ramifications of what they described, they didn't change their
stories. In fact William Lagasse was adamant about what he saw and told Craig Ranke so in an e mail.

"¨Obviously what I saw happened, therefore the conclusions made by people who didnt see it can be flawed...I accept the fact that there can be
miscalculations on my part, but NOT whether or not the plane was on the North or South side of the gas station."

~Sgt William Lagasse after watching The PentaCon and responding to the ASCE (and ultimately Pseudoskeptics)"

O'Brien is on record as saying that he lost sight of the aircraft and when he finally reached the Pentagon basin area 3 minutes later, he had to try
and make out the Potomac River to get an estimate of where the smoke plume was coming from.

Here, Mike Wilson compiled a 3-D computer animation, based on the known damage path, and the facts:

Mike Wilson contradicts the ASCE Report claims regarding the aircraft being in a 8-9º tilt when it allegedly struck the building. And, as with Purdue
he neatly squeezes the 170 odd feet wingspan (at an angle) into that hole without addressing the extremities. Particularly the 40-50ft vertical
stabilizer.

It's also based on a trajectory that nobody witnessed. That's the real problem.

Purdue University created a simulation, using super computers:

Purdue had the aircraft slide in on its belly minus the engines. Surely they could have come up with a better depiction with their super duper
computer?

And of course, there is the on-board Flight Data Recorder (FDR). This is the record of the entire flight, the video begins when the jet taxis into
position for take-off at Dulles. It stops just moments before impact, because the final portion of the info was garbled.....this video was made by
NTSB as a preliminary version, because so many were clamoring to see it. The last moments of data have subsequently been deciphered:

"It stops just moments before impact". Which is why it has no bearing on the NOC testimony.

The Legge 10th (or 11th?) paper is a joke. He couldn't get a single pilot to back his claims.

Apart from the fact that this alleged FDR data from "Flight 77" is allegedly "missing seconds" (which nobody has explained as to why or how), there
are other considerations.

Researcher Aidan Monagahan has established that the NTSB does not have either serial or part numbers for the FDRs from AA77. The NTSB’s own handbook
indicates that the part number and serial number of the FDR are required for data readout of the FDR. The NTSB did not have this information, giving
us another reason to question how the FDR data was created.

Why so many different stories as to when and where the alleged black box was found?

The government claims that the voice data recorder was damaged during the crash and that no usable data was retrieved from it. If true, this would be
the first time in aviation history that a solid-state data recorder was destroyed during a crash.

The wingspan would have been over 170ft at the alleged angle vs facade.

I said that the vertical stabilizer would have been 40-50ft agl because of the alleged height it travelled across the lawn.

The vertical stabilizer "shattered" and left no recognizable pieces, yet the wingtips supposedly sheared multiple lightpoles? And the wafer
thin skin of the aircraft ended up in tidy sheets with visible writing on them having ploughed into a reinforced facade at 540mph? No a wrinkle? How
was that?

The stabilizer shattered yet it was repeatedly claimed that the nosecone made it all the way through to C Ring. Isn't that the same sort of
material? How was that?

How was it that firefighters, survivors, first responders and media reported no visible parts? I mean, just how tiny were these shattered
fragments?

The minimum the stabilizer should have done is leave a mark of some kind on the facade!

The government claims that the voice data recorder was damaged during the crash and that no usable data was retrieved from it. If true, this
would be the first time in aviation history that a solid-state data recorder was destroyed during a crash.

No, not the "first time in history" for a Recorder to be destroyed. They are not "indestructible".

Here's the photo:

In its report on the CVR, the NTSB identified the unit as an L-3 Communications, Fairchild Aviation Recorders model A-100A cockpit voice recorder;
a device which records on magnetic tape. The NTSB reported that "The majority of the recording tape was fused into a solid block of charred
plastic." No usable segments of tape were found inside the recorder.

"It stops just moments before impact". Which is why it has no bearing on the NOC testimony.

Overstatement, and not really factual.

Did you watch the NTSB video? You can clearly see that the airplane is in a position at the end of that data reconstruction that is well south of the
(former) CitGo gas station.

The path it took was indicated by the downed light poles. A tree that was topped. The damage patter inside the Pentagon itself. Et cetera......

The last "bits and bytes" of code from the FDR were properly read by a gentleman named Warren Stutt.

Google for his info.

edit on Wed 9 November 2011 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)

The animation also showed the aircraft to be too high to hit the poles or the Pentagon. Or should we ignore that little anomaly?

The NTSB is the one who should answer these questions. Until they or the FBI do clear up the points I raised earlier, the data stands as is as being
the official data. I personally think it's garbage but that's what they are offering.

Warren Stutt? I'm tired of seeing him schooled at Pilotsfor911Truth.

Read these samples to see how his and Legge's calculations are based on nonsense:

The Above Top Secret Web site is a wholly owned social content community of The Above Network, LLC.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.